dirac

I don't think that Gottlieb's beef is that personal – if he thought the company was in dazzling shape, there's not a doubt in my mind that he'd eat his plate of crow with gusto. However, he may have gotten to the point where he's writing too much of the same thing on NYCB – as Dale notes, it seems as if we're getting these constant passing shots at Ringer, not to mention the regular references to Martins' nefarious practice of not allowing former dancers in to coach. It's not that this isn't a valid point – it certainly is. But he seems to bring it up in every other column, and it begins to sound like overkill. I might be inclined to overkill myself, if I felt I was seeing an institution that meant so much to me apparently in a long term collapse, but maybe it is too much. I held on to that Vanity Fair article too, perky. It's one of my favorites, and the photographs are beautiful.

scoop, you're a nicer person than I am. I rather enjoy the sadistic closeups of the losers, although not always. I still recall Michael Caine's crushed expression from last year after Adrien Brody's name was announced – he's never won as Best Actor, and you could tell he was in bad shape. What I thought was really nasty was Billy Crystal addressing Murray from the stage after Murray lost. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

Actually,The Red Shoes wasn't great in its time, although it was a big hit, rather unexpectedly so. It's a classic, but not a great film. People in 1948 didn't take that stuff seriously any more than we do, although there's more emotional truth in Shearer's dilemma than is sometimes realized. You may find it dreadful to watch and hear, but opinions differ, as this thread indicates.

I'd question that chronology, but suggest only that Ibsen at his most realistic (and he often wasn't all THAT realistic) never forgot to address the needs of drama. The Red Shoes remains supreme for me because it conveys the exhilaration that this art can produce in both audience and performers as no other ballet movie does.

What Drew said. I was also struck by Iannone's reference to "seasoned critics like Arlene Croce" when Croce hasn't written regularly on the company for quite some time now. (Iannone's own criticisms sound like the sort of thing Croce was writing about a decade ago -- in fact, I seem to recall that Croce brought up the "Oedipal issue" back then.) Regarding Ringer, I don't think Gottlieb really cares what the other critics think. What stood out for me was his grudging praise for a dancer he's never had a good word for -- he actually had nice things to say about Weese's Aurora!

sandik, you are correct, it was Debbie Allen. I was confusing the two of them. Actually, Murray's been doing nominatable work for years now, IMO – Groundhog Day and Rushmore are the two that spring to mind – he just hasn't gotten the nod before. I'm sure he'll have other good roles – but they may not be in the kind of movies to which the Academy generally pays attention. Giannina, it was nice to see Penn win, but I must confess I thought Tim Robbins' performance in Mystic River was several pounds' worth of boiled ham. It wasn't all his fault – the overwrought dialogue didn't help – but he's done a lot better, I think. Kevin Bacon was great, and completely overlooked – probably because he wasn't Acting with a capital A.

Between Nikolais and Martins, I'd plump for the latter, but I'd rather watch "White Widow" than one of those Martins "quirky" pas de deux served up occasionally by SFB, I grant you that. I also agree that nothing could be done about the Star's bad taste. I really don't want to be mean about the movie. I was just so disappointed. From The Red Shoes to Invitation to the Dance to The Turning Point to Center Stage to this, it seems to me that ballet movies are definitely reversing the evolutionary process.

Yes, she did. The late Robert Garis said she gave a beautiful rendition, although she didn't quite have the power and stamina of Farrell.

It is remarkable how many statements of that kind were attributed to Derrida, although I'm sure Michael had only the best of intentions. As one on the west coast who gets much of my information about the current state of NYCB here, I also appreciate these reports!

I've already unburdened myself of my negative observations on other threads, but I agree, reluctantly, with atm711 (and with all due respect to the Joffrey fans on the board). I was particularly distressed by the Blue Snake ballet, which the reviewer in People magazine, no less, described accurately as "the dream ballet from Shrek." And then you had that shot of McDowell, et al., applauding furiously, as if they'd just seen Fonteyn and Nureyev's first Giselle. That was painful.

oberon, the Best Actor category is historically the most competitive, as it was again this year, because there are so many good roles for male stars out there. I liked Crowe in M&C too, but I must confess his delivery was so understated I often couldn't hear him very well, so I can't really judge. I'm sure Academy members looked at Keaton and thought, This is why we didn't vote for you, Diane. Thank God we picked the hot babe and not some middle aged broad in drag. Adolphe Menjou would be upset with you, Farrell Fan. His suits were far better cut.

Thank you so much. That picture of Varmilov slays me.

If Amazon doesn't have it, I think www.moviesunlimited.com has it in VHS for about the price you're looking for.

Croce's objection to the peignoir wasn't merely that the donning of it was a contrivance -- getting those ribbons on the floor to be kissed -- but that the kiss itself suggested that Beliaev's true affections are reserved for Natalya -- something that Turgenev had left deliberately unclear (and that's correct, at least in my translation by Isaiah Berlin -- Beliaev isn't insensitive to the feelings of others and he may care for Natalya, but he doesn't really comprehend the turmoil he's created among the women). I haven't seen the ballet and so can't comment. There's also a lengthy discussion of the ballet in Julie Kavanagh's "Secret Muses."

silvy, the piece is in her first collection "Afterimages" which I think is out of print. I don't recall seeing it in the selection of essays "Writing in the Dark, Dancing in The New Yorker," of a few years ago, but it might be there.

Forgot to mention Errol Morris' deeply tacky acceptance speech, wherein he thanked the Academy for "finally recognizing my films!" (I didn't like the way his movie let McNamara get away with all those disingenuous evasions, either.)

I'm not inclined to be too hard on the ladies – sometimes I think the talk about fashion, although generally harmless, can border on the misogynistic (doesn't matter whether it's a man or woman doing the commenting). Can't help noticing there's less preoccupation with how the men look – heaven help Sofia Coppola if she had turned up as the feminine equivalent of Peter Jackson, who looked like something pulled out of a drainpipe, assuming that he could have fit into the drainpipe. Geez, Peter, I was happy that you won, but you could have combed your hair for the occasion. That said, I agree with Ed that Kidman needs a new stylist, or something. This was an improvement on the bag-lady outfit she wore at the Golden Globes, but. Also, her upper arms are looking scarily thin, and her face looks sort of laminated. I caught Far and Away on cable not long ago, and even accounting for the passage of time, I must say I miss that fresh and original-looking girl. I thought Renee looked great, incidentally, but then I applaud any woman who can wear solid white without looking like a white board. If I had a body like Theron's I'd certainly show it off, but on the other hand it might be nice to see her in something not sprayed on once in awhile. Mel Gibson, usually a regular, notable this time for his absence. Gosh, wonder why? Rather a dull show, as mentioned. Awareness of the five-second delay seemed to keep everyone on his best behavior, except that "best behavior" at awards shows often means "boring." No big surprises, which didn't help, either. Charlize, I know everyone said you were a lock, but you could have tried to look just a little more surprised. Pleased to see ROTK make a deserved clean sweep. Enjoyed the shots of Eastwood planted in his seat, looking grim. (Some of us haven't forgiven you for Bird, Clint.) Penn certainly is entitled to his award, but I had been rooting for Bill Murray -- Penn will have other chances, but this was Murray's first and last shot at it, I think. My tape missed the first half hour or so, so there may have been people I didn't see, but the show seemed exceptionally lacking in senior stars – no Paul Newman, no Nicholson, etc. I felt the absence of Gregory Peck, who could be counted upon to lend gravitas to the often absurd goings on, and the tribute to him only emphasized the gap. I saw the Billy Crystal montage later on and must confess I didn't find it funny. I quite liked Ferrell and Black's "Boring" number, though. I still miss the horrible Paula Abdul dance numbers, too. What's the Oscars without a little camp?

I closed out the nominations thread and am starting a new one for anyone who would like to share his/her impressions of Sunday evening's entertainment, which will include, let us hope, some recognition of actual artistic achievement.

Also referring back to TutuMaker's movies post, I agree the situation can be very similar. I can usually find something sufficiently interesting in even the worst movie to make it watchable to the end, although there were a couple -- "Meet Joe Black" and "Disney's The Kid" spring to mind -- that I would have dumped if my companions hadn't wanted to stay. We've talked about recommending books to a friend who didn't like it, but for me it can be even more awkward when your friend LOVED the book or movie and you thought it was awful. In the former case, you can often be discreet and not share your feelings, but in the latter case, you can be put in the position of actually having to lie your head off in order to be polite.

Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times is unimpressed: http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/movies/27DIRT.html (reg. req.) I'll probably check it out anyway if only for the sake of Diego Luna. I didn't think it would be good, but one always hopes.......

Well, temperament sometimes goes too far and turns into plain bad behavior, but that does seem to come with the territory, although I don't make excuses for it. (I tend to forgive Nureyev almost everything because it's all so much duller without him. With him around, ballet made headlines -- one way or another!) In her autobiography, Karen Kain recounts a story in her otherwise admiring and deeply grateful account of working with Nureyev of a disastrous Sleeping Beauty where the audience apparently did just that, perky. Briefly, Nureyev hurt his foot backstage kicking something in a fit of pique and didn't want to continue with the performance. However, his alternates had headed out to a movie so it was Rudi or no prince. Nureyev finished the performance but in a manner so nakedly resentful and perfunctory that the audience expressed its unhappiness in no uncertain terms. Kain says he didn't arrive on cue for the Awakening scene wouldn't even give her the kiss – just bent over slightly and made a loud smack. She also mentions that he wouldn't kiss any Aurora who made the error of wearing lip gloss.

dido, I know what you mean about taking it personally. Sometimes, with books (or movies) that are close to our hearts, it's very difficult when a friend doesn't respond. One of my favorite books is Saul Bellow's Seize the Day, and one day I brought it up with a well-read acquaintance, who said "Oh yes, that was something about some loser with father troubles." I didn't say anything about how I felt about the book, but it was hard for me not to let that lower my friend in my estimation.

I can't imagine booing, but I'd suggest that if performers occasionally receive ecstatic vocal receptions, they should also be prepared to endure the opposite every once in awhile. That's showbiz.

I'd suggest that one's approach should vary depending on factors such as age and development of taste. These days, I don't spend any time persisting with a book that doesn't grab me beyond a chapter or two. However -- had I taken that line when I was very young and my judgment and taste were still relatively unformed, I would have missed out on a lot of good and great stuff. Giving up on an airplane read such as The Da Vinci Code is one thing, discarding Ulysses after chapter one is another. I'm not saying you're not at liberty to toss aside Ulysses or some of the Great Unreadables, like Richardson's Clarissa, but not after you've made an honest attempt, and this is especially true for younger readers. Your taste can change, too, or sometimes the writers change. I used to grab the latest Philip Roth hot off the presses, but my experience with his recent work is that it's unlikely to enhance my reading pleasure, and so I don't bother. However, I regard that as his fault, not mine.

Not to suggest that Tallchiefs come with the mail, but I wonder if Balanchine more or less allowed the line to expire once he was breeding enough tall girls with the speed and clarity he wanted? Although there was Kirkland, the one that got away. (I know, she looked waiflike as all getout, but on the films I've seen she's a tigress in disguise.) Back to Bouder, sorry.